Any stance/thoughts on the McKenna West surrogacy case?

McKenna West was a surrogate for a couple. Around 20 weeks in, the fetus was diagnosed with a serious heart defect. Their surrogacy agreement reportedly included provisions for terminating the pregnancy, and the intended parents wanted her to proceed with an abortion. West initially agreed but later changed her mind and refused.

With help from a pro-life organization, West left Alaska for Texas, continued the pregnancy, and gave birth. The baby was born with the heart defect and is currently critically ill after undergoing heart surgery.

Now there's a custody dispute. The biological parents say West violated their agreement and that they should have custody. West says she had the right to continue the pregnancy and acted in the baby's best interest. West's legal team is arguing the biological parents shouldn't have any custody going forward, reasoning that their attempts for an abortion was a clear sign the parents are a grave risk to the baby.

What's your take? Should a surrogate be able to refuse an abortion even when the contract includes provisions for it? And now that the baby is born, who should have custody—the biological parents or the surrogate?